Which lens would you suggest

I am a new and ever learning photographer and I am taking my first dive into L class lenses. my choices are the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L IS II. Currently in my bag i have the nifty fifty 1.8, and 28-135 2.5-5.6. Which lens would you suggest i get. I really havent found my niche yet so I lean from one end of the spectrum to the other when it comes to what i like to shoot.

Brandman wrote in post #14054515
I am a new and ever learning photographer and I am taking my first dive into L class lenses. my choices are the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L IS II. Currently in my bag i have the nifty fifty 1.8, and 28-135 2.5-5.6. Which lens would you suggest i get. I really havent found my niche yet so I lean from one end of the spectrum to the other when it comes to what i like to shoot.

28-135 2.5-5.6???

IMO, you should learn more about photography. Knowing the limit of your current lens. Remember skill is more important than lens. Lens is only a tool to help you take better photos, but still requires the photographer skills to bring out the potential of it. If you still don't know what your interests or focal length will be, Go out there and shoot more, find out what you like the best~!

i like portraiture also i would like to get into shooting sports, i also like landscape photography but think that will be reserved for when i get a ultra wide angle. I like walking around down town and finding interesting things to shoot people, architecture. like i said i havent really found a niche that i am just completely into. as far as my current lenses i have a 50mm 1.8 and a 28-135 3.5-5.6 is the 50mm has sharp pictures and is nice in low light but I'm stuck at one focal length. the 28-135 is alright but after seeing the difference when you are shooting with a quality lens i want a lens that is ultra sharp and great with color. also the thing i really liked about the L lenses was how fast they focused. which one would you prefer and why?

Brandman wrote in post #14054589
i like portraiture also i would like to get into shooting sports, i also like landscape photography but think that will be reserved for when i get a ultra wide angle. I like walking around down town and finding interesting things to shoot people, architecture. like i said i havent really found a niche that i am just completely into. as far as my current lenses i have a 50mm 1.8 and a 28-135 3.5-5.6 is the 50mm has sharp pictures and is nice in low light but I'm stuck at one focal length. the 28-135 is alright but after seeing the difference when you are shooting with a quality lens i want a lens that is ultra sharp and great with color. also the thing i really liked about the L lenses was how fast they focused. which one would you prefer and why?

First, L lens don't necessary to have fast AF. The 85L is actually a lot slower than its cheaper version 85mm f/1.8 in terms of AF speed. Are you sure the lens that you owned now is limiting you, if so, how? I strongly suggest you to go rent one of the lens that you want to buy and try it out first. Remember a lens that would do everything for sure is not a good lens, super zoom is often a trade off for IQ. Seems like you like shoot everything, I am assuming you want a lens that will act as a walk around then.

Here are some of the lens that I like as a walk around zoom:

Cheap route:
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non VC + Canon 70-200mm f/4 non IS (This combo should cover what you like to shoot)

More money to spare:
Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (Great for crop body)
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L
Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS

Shoot more. Learn what focal length you want most and then come back and ask questions. We cant suggest something really when you want to cover the entire spectrum with a single lens from what it sounds like. Work on your technique before deciding you need better glass cause you could have the best lenses in the world and you'll still have not so great pictures if you dont know how to use them.

Also what body are you shooting with?

let me rephrase my question forget my skill level, just because I havent chosen one particular area of focus doesn't mean i'm not knowledgeable or lack skill level to take pictures with great composition. I'm looking for a sharp, versatile, fast lens. out of the 2 lenses that i have mentioned which one fits the bill of being sharp, versatile, and fast?

Brandman wrote in post #14054616
let me rephrase my question forget my skill level, just because I havent chosen one particular area of focus doesn't mean i'm not knowledgeable or lack skill level to take pictures with great composition. I'm looking for a sharp, versatile, fast lens. out of the 2 lenses that i have mentioned which one fits the bill of being sharp, versatile, and fast?

I afraid it is a hard question to answer then. Without knowing your area of focus is hard to give you suggestions. The 24-70L and the 70-200L is a very different lens, they are for different purposes. If you like to shoot landscape or street photography, I wouldn't recommend the 70-200, since it is too tight for the style, where if you like to shoot wildlife, I wouldn't recommend the 24-70L as the focal length it too short. So You really have to know what you are shooting first? A good photographer should always know what lens to use according to the environment and situation. Without knowing your interests and focus, it is just hard to answer. Or as my previous comment, just get a walk around zoom.

The two lens that you mention are both very sharp and versatile, fast but not as fast as prime.

im shooting with a 7d I like walking around down town and finding interesting things to shoot ie people and architecture. i like portraiture, and sports. out of the two lenses which do you think would be better for the things i like ie which one would you consider more versatile

thank you for your responses they are much appreciated

Brandman wrote in post #14054652
im shooting with a 7d I like walking around down town and finding interesting things to shoot ie people and architecture. i like portraiture, and sports. out of the two lenses which do you think would be better for the things i like ie which one would you consider more versatile

Okay...so street photography then~! Out of the two that you mentioned, the 24-70L will be a better fit IMO~! The 70-200 is simply too bulky to walk around town with.

Myself, I like to use a prime for street photography. I use my 5D MK II with the 50L often, but since my acquire of the fuji x100, that has been my street use camera~! Travel light is always my thing for street shots.

17-40mm

Brandman wrote in post #14054652
im shooting with a 7d I like walking around down town and finding interesting things to shoot ie people and architecture. i like portraiture, and sports. out of the two lenses which do you think would be better for the things i like ie which one would you consider more versatile

Both; the 70-200 is probably going to be too long for the type of landscape, and people that you want to shoot. The 24-70 is going to be too short/wide for the sports you want to shoot( especially field/stadium sports).

Seriously, we're not trying to give you a hard time.. you want and need 2 different lenses!

1. Pick which you want to shoot more..lanscapes, people, and general "walkaround" subjects..and pick a suitable lens;
-17-55 2.8 IS(or the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS, Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC)
-24-105 F/4L IS
-15-85 IS
-24-70 2.8L

OR

2. Decide on a long lens for sports and wildlife, etc... and pick a suitable lens ..for that!

- EF-S 55-250 IS
- 70-200 f/4L USM or IS
- 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM (big bucks)(or Sigma OS)
- 70-300 IS Canon or Tamron VC
- 70-300 L IS
- 100-400 L IS

OR

3. Buy both!!

1st. Decide on the focal length that best fits your desires/needs.
2nd. Decide on other factors that are important to you like IS or not, fixed or variable aperture, speed of lens, physical size, etc.
3rd. Start saving now!!! You appear to be a good candidate that will join many of us in trying to purchase one of each. This hobby can get really expensive.

Other things to consider you might need: good flash, post processing program with good noise reduction, maybe even a monopod or tripod. There is a long list of accessories that are very useful. You won't believe how the cost can add up.

Brandman wrote in post #14054616
let me rephrase my question forget my skill level, just because I havent chosen one particular area of focus doesn't mean i'm not knowledgeable or lack skill level to take pictures with great composition. I'm looking for a sharp, versatile, fast lens. out of the 2 lenses that i have mentioned which one fits the bill of being sharp, versatile, and fast?

I would cast my vote for the 70-200 2.8L IS II for many reasons including the fact that it is just a gorgeous lens, and you'll have the much smaller non-white nifty-fifty for those times when you need something less intense. Also, any of these will certainly not be the last lens you ever buy and the just released 24-70 2.8L II is much better than the 24-70 2.8L you are considering - hence another reason to top for the 70-200.

LOL...
OP, I was in the same boat as you now a year ago; and i bought my first L lens, the 24-70. I know someone (if not a lot) will argue with me about this, but i talked to my local photog here and they all recommended the 24-70L. Then i got the 70-200L IS II to get into sports and some wildlife with 2x extender. I'm still learning photography and with my personal experiences, i would advise you to get the 24-70 if those are the only choices.